With respect to the JPSA, that stands to reason. I mean no offence to the JPSA, the mere fact that they have to make such a statement should attest to the type of situation they are dealing with.
My meagre understanding of the law is thus – you are either breaking the law, or obeying the law. There is no in between. Yes, lawyers are paid huge sums of money to find ‘grey’ areas, but the basic elements of law are this – you either acted in accordance to the law, or you did not.
I think for most ordinary citizens, this summation of law is the easiest to comprehend, so please all the legal eagles out there, please don’t take me on about the finer points and grey areas. I don’t earn enough to pay a lawyer to defend me.
I would think it very simple – a 90 percent compliance means 10 percent is not compliant; therefore the final 10 percent must be remedied before the bill is passed. Right? Apparently not in South Africa.
Imagine what would happen if we said we would pay 90 percent of the bill received from Sanral? I don’t think Sanral would appreciate that. Or any other company for that matter.
But what happens when the very government entrusted with establishing laws to protect people are the ones breaking the law? This leads to a somewhat disastrous situation, for all living in the country.
If we, the people, cannot trust that our government will observe due process when passing bills, how does the government expect people to observe the laws? When we cannot trust the legality of the laws, people will begin breaking them. It will start with a few, who will begin breaking laws, usually those people who don’t ordinarily obey any laws.
This idea will begin to spread, until the culture of lawlessness infects the morally and legally upright in society. When this infection hits, it will spread like a contagion. And just like the spread of any disease, unless it is quarantined and eradicated, it will continue to spread and mutate.
When the morally upstanding members of society begin disregarding the laws of the country, we are only a few short steps away from anarchy and war. Was it not once said that an unjust law is no law?
This begs the question to government – are they not concerned about what the people have to say about e-tolling? Are they not concerned about the fact that people, who normally follow the laws of the country, are now breaking the law?
As I see it, government has two choices – stamp out the spread of this disease with brutal callousness, ignoring the sentiments of the very people who voted them into power. This choice would lead to a further degeneration of the trust between the people and government.
Alternatively, choice number two, listen to what the people are saying and try establish a compromise. Listen to what the people are saying and take heed of their concerns.
I think the biggest concern people have about e-tolling is the question of what is happening to the taxes we pay. Don’t forget, a portion of our taxes goes towards maintaining the roads within the country.
On the other side of the coin, we also know the bills for the road upgrades must be paid. We know who will have to pay – it will be us, the ordinary citizens. That said, an increased fuel levy was one of the alternatives proposed which seemed to go down easier with residents.
Come on government, meet the people half-way.
Methinks it would do our government the world of good to remember the following: the role of government is not to govern. It is to protect the people from each other, to watchdog society and business. Government should be in place to protect the little guy – not the corporate giants.
